Advice wanted: 3.5 weapon sizing

[pogre]

And that would be what?

Quasqueton

BFS

 

[DungeonMaster]

Errata has been given.

Would you have been happy with weapon sizing if they released errata?
As far as I can tell the arms and equipment guide had a similar ill conceived system.

And I have the corrected PHB.

And 99% of the people out there don't?

Did you have a point? Of course not.

You're claiming the 3rd edition weapon system is "broken" because halfling rogues lose 1 increment of threat range using a dagger over a small rapier. Ironically the rogue proficiency list is the only list with a size bias in 3rd edition. Yet you ignore that the 3.5 rogue wasn't given proficiency in *sap* and all the above nonsense of one-handed reach weapons and lances.
I don't know Merric, I think it's you that don't have a point.

 

[MerricB]

According to 3e weapon rules, a wizard can use a medium dagger (that's one sized for a cloud giant) dealing 1d8 damage with no penalty; or even a large dagger (that's one sized for a 31+ HD Titan) dealing 2d6 damage. Cool, huh!

Are the 3.5e rules perfect? By no means. Definite holes still exist. They do, at least, provide a more unified system.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Well by the book no rogues in 3.5 are proficient with the sap of all weapons so I'm kinda surprised you're irritated by the lack of direct equivalencies in rogue proficiencies moreso then this oversight.

....yeah, well, the point of this thread is weapon sizing. If we'd like to talk about rogue weapon proficiencies independant of how they relate to weapon sizing, we can take it into a new thread.

The 3.5 rules are, after some study, IMHO, CLEARLY superior to the 3.0 version.

Think of a weapon not defined by the damage it deals, but by the qualities it has: a "longsword" is a one-handed martial weapon that deals slashing damage and has a 19-20 critical range. This should be the same regardless of the size: a longsword should always be a one-handed martial weapon that deals slashing damage and has a 19-20 critical range. The damage, however, should vary with the size of the weapon.

In another example, a dagger is a light simple weapon that deals piercing or slashing damage, can be thrown, and has a 19-20 critical range. This should be the same regardless of size. It should always be that.

It makes sense when you think that every size of creature makes it's own weapons. Halflings don't have to rely on human hand-me-downs like the hobbits of Tolkien. They can make their OWN legendary epic weapons of orc-murder. The gnomes have as many masters of weapons as the humans and the elves, and they're not going to want to rely on one-handed daggers to get the job done.

Weapons are better seen as packages of qualities that you can add to your attack. Curcifying the notion that Longswords Deal 1d8 Damage may be hard, but I think the game is better for it.

 

[DungeonMaster]

According to 3e weapon rules, a wizard can use a medium dagger (that's one sized for a cloud giant) dealing 1d8 damage with no penalty; or even a large dagger (that's one sized for a 31+ HD Titan) dealing 2d6 damage. Cool, huh!

According to what rules? Where does it say that?
At worst what are we looking at? A martial weapon feat? Is this the extent of brokeness?

Are the 3.5e rules perfect? By no means. Definite holes still exist. They do, at least, provide a more unified system.

Somehow unification is better than common sense?
The advantage of a common sense system is that you don't encounter players who want to dual weild halfling longspears that are codified as giving reach when human shortspears dont. You pick up a giant's dagger and it's a sword for someone your size.
I honestly fail to see how the "unified" system is providing greater aid to the DM or to the game at all.

 

[Quasqueton]

Someone needs to post that pick of Conan with his sword vs. a "giant" knife.

Somehow unification is better than common sense?

Interesting that you call for common sense when discussing the 3.0 weapon size rules, but then you throw out common sense in your complaint about 3.5.

You pick up a giant's dagger and it's a sword for someone your size.

What is a giant's scimitar? A fachion to a human? How about a halfling's sickle in human hands? How about a heavy crossbow in halfling hands? A human shortsword is a piercing weapon, yet in the hands of a halfling its a piercing longsword? What is a human scythe in an ogre's grip?

Quasqueton

 

[DungeonMaster]

Interesting that you call for common sense when discussing the 3.0 weapon size rules, but then you throw out common sense in your complaint about 3.5.

When things are codified you face a dilemma. That is that you have a rule and you have to make an explicit rule against it. When things are not codified you don't need to explicitely contradict what's written. There's a difference between interpretation and house-ruling.
You have to house-rule 3.5 weapon sizes, there's no room for interpretation.
I appeal to DM common sense always , not just in this instance.

What is a giant's scimitar? A fachion to a human? How about a halfling's sickle in human hands? How about a heavy crossbow in halfling hands? A human shortsword is a piercing weapon, yet in the hands of a halfling its a piercing longsword? What is a human scythe in an ogre's grip?

I giant's scimitar would be a falchion? A giant's falchion is too large to use?
A halfling can use a heavy crossbow? A halfling's use of the sword is different?
An ogre can use a scythe in one hand?
None of these are "real" issues if you can accept that a human fighter can switch between a dagger, a shortsword, a greatsword, a heavy mace, a light pick, a throwing axe, a rapier, a trident, a battleaxe, a warhammer, a falchion, a lance, a ranseur, a sycthe, a greatclub, a heavy flail, a shortbow, a longbow, a composite longbow, a dart, a sling, a sickle, a glaive - and not skip a beat .
Admitting a "halfling greatsword" is just that much different than the panoply of weapons the standard fighter knows how to use to kill something effectively at level 1 is nothing short of ridiculous.

 

[I'm A Banana]

According to what rules? Where does it say that?
At worst what are we looking at? A martial weapon feat? Is this the extent of brokeness?

He has dagger proficiency, and that large dagger is just a large dagger. He can still throw it, it still has the better crit, he doesn't need to take any feats. He is profficient with any dagger form the size of a pin to the size of a house, provided he can somehow wield it.

For what it's worth, in 3.5, the wizard can still wield that giant's dagger. He'll take a -4 to hit and it'll deal 1d8 points of damage, and he has to use two hands to wield it.

What's better, a wizard wieldling a throwable greatsword (3.0) or a wizard wieldling a throwable longsword with two hands (3.5)? Which makes more sense?

Somehow unification is better than common sense?

Except the 3.0 rules didn't make any sense. So that's a nice strawman.

The advantage of a common sense system is that you don't encounter players who want to dual weild halfling longspears that are codified as giving reach when human shortspears dont. You pick up a giant's dagger and it's a sword for someone your size.
I honestly fail to see how the "unified" system is providing greater aid to the DM or to the game at all.

Dungeonmaster, you've admitted to not reading the rules in other threads, and your idea of dual-wielding halfling longspears being somehow an unbridled powerhouse showcases your lack of knowledge and extensive use of hyperbole in this scenario.

The 3.5 rules address the shortspear and the longspear as *seperate* weapons. A longspear isn't just a big shortspear, and a shortspear isn't just a small longspear. They are different weapons -- one built for striking things farther away, one built for stabbing and throwing. I'm sure anyone who has any training in weapon manufacture or use can tell you that weapons designed for different features have different qualities. Shortspears are weighted, longspears have braces, shortspears might have some crude fletching, longspears have reinforced hafts to prevent breakage. Different goals, different kinds of weapons.

Can a human fighter dual-wield halfling glaives for two reach weapons? Sure thing. But is (at first level, assuming they took Two-Weapon Fighting) two attacks at -6 that deal damage like a longsword at all worth the investment? When, by the time this attack bonus is +1, you could have a fighter using a regular glaive twice in a round at a higher base attack bonus anyway?

It might help your case more if you actually looked at the consequences that the choice you state makes on a character, rather than just getting indignant at the wrongness of two halfling reach weapons.

EDIT:

I giant's scimitar would be a falchion? A giant's falchion is too large to use?
A halfling can use a heavy crossbow? A halfling's use of the sword is different?
An ogre can use a scythe in one hand?
None of these are "real" issues if you can accept that a human fighter can switch between a dagger, a shortsword, a greatsword, a heavy mace, a light pick, a throwing axe, a rapier, a trident, a battleaxe, a warhammer, a falchion, a lance, a ranseur, a sycthe, a greatclub, a heavy flail, a shortbow, a longbow, a composite longbow, a dart, a sling, a sickle, a glaive - and not skip a beat .
Admitting a "halfling greatsword" is just that much different than the panoply of weapons the standard fighter knows how to use to kill something effectively at level 1 is nothing short of ridiculous.

I don't understand where you're coming from here. Are you saying that weapon size isn't an issue once you've accepted fighter weapon proficiencies? Fill me in on these leaps of logic?

 

[Quasqueton]

I giant's scimitar would be a falchion? A giant's falchion is too large to use?
A halfling can use a heavy crossbow? A halfling's use of the sword is different?
An ogre can use a scythe in one hand?

All these question marks. Are you adding to my list of questions?

Admitting a "halfling greatsword" is just that much different than the panoply of weapons the standard fighter knows how to use to kill something effectively at level 1 is nothing short of ridiculous.

How much different is a bastard sword than a longsword that it requires a feat to use [in one hand]? A kama and siangham also require a feat to use, yet they are as close to a sickle and dagger as a shortsword in a human's hand and a "longsword" in a halfling's hand.

Quasqueton

 

[Storyteller01]

I will soon be starting a 3.5 campaign with mostly newbies. One player has played in some PbP and a brief (1 or 2 sessions) d20 Call of Cthulhu game. One or two others have only the aforementioned CoC campaign under their belts, and the rest are completely new to non-videogame RPGs. To me, it makes sense to have very few house rules so as not to confuse them. So as much as I don't like the 3.5 weapon sizing, I find myself thinking it may be easier on the newbs if I use it. And maybe I'll find it's not so bad. (I haven't actually played a game with 3.5 weapon-sizing yet. My groups have either played 3.0 or played 3.5 with the 3.0 weapon sizing.)

So tell me your experiences with the 3.5 weapon sizing. Did you initially hate it but learn to love it? Like it but grow to loathe it? Or did experience confirm your initial reaction?

Tossed it. Beside, I'm playing DS at the moment. Weapon sizes tend to go out the window when even tiny weapons are doing 1d12 and ignoring cover.

And please folks, let's keep the flaming to a minimum. The threads originator asked for our experience. Don't think he intended to start a debate.

(but then again, you never know... )